posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
orichalcum at 03:04pm on 17/06/2008 under politics
orichalcum at 03:04pm on 17/06/2008 under politicsMcClatchy has been doing some very important reporting on the U.S. promotion of torture at Guantanamo and other prisons.
Among othr revelations, we learn that in September 2002, David Addington, chief counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon’s top lawyer; acting CIA counsel John Rizzo; Jonathan Fredman, chief counsel of the CIA Counterterrorism center, and Michael Chertoff, head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division (and now President Bush's Homeland Security secretary), visited Guantanamo to observe the interrogation of prisoners.
A week afterwards, Fredman gave the top officials at Guantanamo the following standards on interrogation: "f the detainee dies you're doing it wrong." They suggested reverse engineering a program designed to help U.S. troops resist torture.
This is coming out today in testimony before Congress, together with detailed documentary records and minutes of relevant meetings. This isn't a wacky liberal conspiracy theory.*
So here's my question. We've got more and more evidence that the torture wasn't a matter of "a few bad apple" sergeants and privates at Abu Ghraib; indeed, all they did was record the procedures for posterity. It clearly went at least up to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice, if not Bush personally.
If Obama wins, what should his Attorney General do about this? Part of me wants to have serious, thorough investigations and indict these folks for war crimes if the evidence holds up. Part of me thinks that a Democratic government should spend its limited capital on the future, not the past, change the interrogation policies but not indict Addington et al in the interest of moving forward and spending our energy on things like health care and the environment. But I don't like sending the message that people can get away with this, either.
*And for the record, I don't think torture is ever justified, and yes, even in the fearmongering "ticking bomb" theory, I would rather risk the small chance of being blown up than have my government violate its principles of justice and human rights - and I lived in NYC on September 11th, had panic attacks for months afterwards, and have since lived in another major city with the country's tallest building, so don't tell me I don't understand the danger or am being naive.
Among othr revelations, we learn that in September 2002, David Addington, chief counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon’s top lawyer; acting CIA counsel John Rizzo; Jonathan Fredman, chief counsel of the CIA Counterterrorism center, and Michael Chertoff, head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division (and now President Bush's Homeland Security secretary), visited Guantanamo to observe the interrogation of prisoners.
A week afterwards, Fredman gave the top officials at Guantanamo the following standards on interrogation: "f the detainee dies you're doing it wrong." They suggested reverse engineering a program designed to help U.S. troops resist torture.
This is coming out today in testimony before Congress, together with detailed documentary records and minutes of relevant meetings. This isn't a wacky liberal conspiracy theory.*
So here's my question. We've got more and more evidence that the torture wasn't a matter of "a few bad apple" sergeants and privates at Abu Ghraib; indeed, all they did was record the procedures for posterity. It clearly went at least up to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice, if not Bush personally.
If Obama wins, what should his Attorney General do about this? Part of me wants to have serious, thorough investigations and indict these folks for war crimes if the evidence holds up. Part of me thinks that a Democratic government should spend its limited capital on the future, not the past, change the interrogation policies but not indict Addington et al in the interest of moving forward and spending our energy on things like health care and the environment. But I don't like sending the message that people can get away with this, either.
*And for the record, I don't think torture is ever justified, and yes, even in the fearmongering "ticking bomb" theory, I would rather risk the small chance of being blown up than have my government violate its principles of justice and human rights - and I lived in NYC on September 11th, had panic attacks for months afterwards, and have since lived in another major city with the country's tallest building, so don't tell me I don't understand the danger or am being naive.
thoughtful
There are 12 comments on this entry.